Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous [Updated]

Readers of What's Wrong with the World know that I am a huge fan of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. I consider his work on Islam and the jihad to be first rate, and I owe it to his work at his blog that I am able to be well-informed both about the dangers of Islam and about the dodges used to call it a "religion of peace."

I am therefore astonished and disappointed to announce that I have been, as of today, banned from commenting at Jihad Watch.

In this comment in a thread here on coalitions I mentioned Robert Spencer's decision, with which I disagree, to cancel an event co-hosted with the Christian Action Network because of a rather strident letter written years ago under its auspices condemning the homosexual agenda. I sent further comments on the matter and on my disagreement with the decision to View From the Right, here.

Earlier today I attempted to post a comment at Jihad Watch in which I asked directly just how toned-down the Christian Action Network's rhetoric against the homosexual agenda would have had to be in order for Robert Spencer et. al. to be willing to make public common cause with them against the jihad. For example, had a different letter been written warning against the homosexual agenda in culture, complaining about a TV show, and calling the homosexual lifestyle "unnatural" or even "perverted," would that also have caused the co-hosted event to be canceled when the letter came to light? I did not keep a copy of my comment, so W4 readers will have to take my word for it that there was nothing remotely abusive about it. I think the question is a good one. Mr. Spencer (whom I continue to admire) insists that it is not the views of the Christian Action Network but the way that they were expressed that caused him to cancel the event. Yet almost any fund-raising letter to constituents on that subject from a strongly socially conservative organization would contain expressions and statements that would be deemed bigoted and homophobic by the Tolerance Police. So I think there needs to be a real question asked as to how and whether it would be possible for an organization to meet Spencer's rhetorical requirements while continuing in vocal, clearly worded, and unabashed opposition to the activist homosexual agenda.

That was it. Ten minutes ago, when I (having noticed that my comment had not posted) logged on to see if I could re-post it, I found that I have been banned from commenting at Jihad Watch. When I log in, I am given a message that I do not have permission to comment on the site. If you read the thread, you will see that there are others published there who criticize Spencer's decision and even those who argue over the morality of homosexuality. Why I was chosen for banning remains a matter for conjecture.

I am very, very disappointed in Jihad Watch. I would like to think that the banning decision was made by someone other than Spencer himself. I don't know how these things work at JW. If it was made by Spencer, I am disappointed in him as well, though I continue to applaud him for his courageous and scholarly work in opposing the global jihad, and I will continue to read and recommend his site.

Update (3/27/10): I wrote to Robert Spencer today, using his director's e-mail address found on this page. (I've not previously had any direct contact with him.) He wrote back saying that he would look into it, which I take to mean that the banning was done without his knowledge. He then wrote again and told me to try to see if I could comment and to let him know if it didn't work. It did work, so I am now un-banned at Jihad Watch. Both e-mail notes were brief and, though not un-cordial, not informative. There must be some story behind my banning (apparently by some other blog administrator at Jihad Watch), but I have not been told that story, and it's possible that Spencer does not know it either but decided based on my e-mail to reinstate my commenting privileges. The whole thing is odd and a bit disturbing, but I'm glad to be able to report that the decision was reversed, in any event.

I have been prohibited at Big Hollywood, American Thinker (where I am a contributing essayist), and other sites from writing anything about homosexuality where I cite facts, figures, medical evidence, etc. which demonstrate the depths of depravity we, as a culture, have come to accept, if not approve.

The mainstreaming of sodomy without regard to its effects, evils, and corruption of innocence, but you will never read a single word at NRO, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the rest about just how horrific the effect of homosexuality is, and the promotion of its practice among children and teens simply scandalizes the soul.

Schools encourage confused, weak, and disturbed young people to become the easy targets of adult predators.

I am forbidden to ask -- "If sodomy is so good, natural, and health, why do homosexuals have a life span that's 24 years less than the national average?"

If homosexuality (particularly male homosexuality) is a natural, biological event with statistical regularity over all human populations, please explain why there are more male homosexuals in urban areas than rural ones, and why are black males more prone to be "born" gay than white males?

Is it just possible that environment, lack of fathers, molestation by predators, lack of fatherly help and guidance to the uncoordinated and somewhat more effete male child (few athletes are homosexual except in women's sports) could have something to do with it?

MB and Bruce, I wasn't meaning to argue about the legitimacy of homosexuality in this thread. (And Bruce, I don't quite get your point, but I never use the term "homophobic" without irony. It's a silly neologism which _of course_ means "having opinions about homosexuality which liberals disapprove of." So if you're under the impression that I'm worried about being considered "homophobic," you're much mistaken.) Besides, as you can see in the thread at Jihad Watch, they _are_ permitting comments critical both of homosexuality and of the decision to cancel the event. I wish I had kept a copy of my comment so that I could demonstrate that it was no more inflammatory than anything else in the thread, and less so than some things. That can't be the whole matter.

Al, I'm ignorant on this point: What has now happened to Bruce Bartlett and David Frum and now to me? I take it you aren't referring to not being allowed to comment at Jihad Watch, and so I'm not getting the allusion.

Steve, if I should find out that it is the result of a misunderstanding, I'll definitely post an update explaining.

The mainstreaming of sodomy without regard to its effects, evils, and corruption of innocence, but you will never read a single word at NRO, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the rest about just how horrific the effect of homosexuality is, and the promotion of its practice among children and teens simply scandalizes the soul.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more homosexers in places like NRO, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the rest, than they let on.

Suburban Yahoo, I think that's a fairly pointless and even somewhat tasteless remark. There can be a place both for taking sexual orientation per se into account and, in other cases, a place for considering orientation per se not to be terribly relevant. Even if your conjecture is correct, ex hypothesi (since we don't know who these people are) the people in question are either "in the closet" or at least are not activists for the homosexual political agenda. They could be conservatives and do good work for the organizations. The question for those types of organizations, it seems to me, is one of likemindedness and good work for shared causes and truths. The affliction of a homosexual orientation is not _of necessity_ a block to conservative like-mindedness and co-belligerence. Each case would have to be considered individually by the people who make the decisions. So I would suggest that you can it on such pointless and unsupported conjectures.

In any event, this post is about the unaccountable behavior of the Jihad Watch administrators.

Given what I've read of what Spencer has said on supposed inconsistencies in his focus (Auster got on him once for describing the US as secular, as well as not being vocal enough about immigration) I think he is being pragmatic. He considers jihad to be the only focus of his efforts in this area, and since sexual libertines are the liberals most likely to ally against this, he doesn't want to run them off.

Anti-jihad writers seem to have a fixation on allying with the social left, and running off the social conservatives, as witness the Charles Johnson fiasco, which was still being discussed even a month ago.

That's relevant, Maximos, in a way, but Johnson has also become completely anti-Spencer, and as far as I know (I won't read his site anymore) Johnson is no longer anti-jihad, either. He went completely off the leftwing deep end and appears to call all anti-jihad writers "fascists" and the like now.

I do think that there is _something_ of a pattern emerging of Spencer and Geller preferring to ally with the social left than with the social right, but it would be unfortunate if they took this to the level of banning relatively unknown commentators for disagreeing with them. If I may say so, such an action is (ahem) a lot more characteristic of Geller than of Spencer. I hope he doesn't change in this regard.

Actually, Suburban Yahoo is closer to the truth about conservatives and Christians steering clear of discussion about sodomy and its effects on society.

Some may be closeted, but far more are themselves sodomists in the sense of what Andrew Sullivan said, "We're all sodomists now." Heterosexuals embrace (cough cough) acts of sodomy themselves as the polymorphous perverse delights of sexual practice.

[Edited--LM--Mark, I try to keep my threads from involving that specific of a discussion of sexual acts.]

Then there are a great many people like Dennis Prager who will never say a bad word about homosexuality or sodomy despite his usually orthodox Jewish beliefs. Dennis always refers to some family member and his "partner" with great affection and refuses to disapprove anything regarding that partnership because they are such good and decent people, and for Dennis the world is simply made up of two kinds of people - the decent and indecent.

And to Dennis, anyone condemning the private practice of two people of the same sex who seem to be kind and affectionate is being indecent.

I have no idea as to why you seem to have been blocked from posting at Jihad Watch, but I wouldn't be surprised if your instinct regarding Ms. Geller is on spot.

As far as the discussion concerning the presence of homosexuals in and around conservative causes, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Butterworth. I think what he describes is accurate and will ultimately be the reason for having to separate the wheat from the chaff as the culture disintegrates. I hope it won't, but think it will, and Christians will find that while we have common ground with conservatives most concerned with national security and the economy, they will drop us like a hot potato when push comes to shove over political victories.

I say this because of what has gone on here in Illinois recently during the February primary election, when one prominant candidate was "outed" by an opponent in a way that made me uncomfortable. But that incident led to other discussions in the local media about the hanky panky among some very conservative and high-profile Republicans in Washington. Much of it would qualify as "gossip" but it hasn't been the first time it's been referenced and as my cop father always says, "Where there's smoke there's fire." The entire episode gave me a sort of sick feeling in my stomach and I think Christians should enter into all alliances with caution.

Yes, Gina, it's like pornography. There is no public recognition on the Right that pornography is an immense evil and ruination of innocence and decorum. The Right has simply caved into demands of its own selfish libido amidst the occasionally tsk tsking.

The churches are struggling mightily with the habitual viewing of porn by so many males, adult and adolescent.

By God, we have sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.

I got kicked off a web site for Christian movie critics for chastising critics who approved various uses of nudity and simulated sex in films. I asked - how is it ever acceptable to praise films which exploit women (and men) in such ways?

For example, when someone gets shot by a gun in a movie, we know it's not real. But when people expose their bodies, they are actually exposing their bodies on a movie set surrounded by a host of people recording it that hosts may later view it.

When people simulate sex, embracing, caressing and so forth -- people who are not married (usually) are actually committing acts of sin with each other.

I used to be a bug about foul language, but not quite as much lately but I'd accept censorship of it without a qualm like Shakespeare did.

Anyway, is it any wonder that we are seeing the wholesale plunder of America today at a level of corruption never seen before except that having no more moral boundaries in our culture, there is none in our politics?

Dear Lydia. Well now, I am, finally, in good company. I was banned from commenting at JW after I made some flippant - but not nasty - remarks that were made in favor of some critical comments by The Hesperado.

"There is no public recognition on the Right that pornography is an immense evil and ruination of innocence and decorum. The Right has simply caved into demands of its own selfish libido amidst the occasionally tsk tsking."

Individual freedom trumps the good of the community, even, unfortunately, among many on the Right. In this sense certain elements of modern conservatism aren't really conservative -- they represent a subspecies of liberalism.

By the way, the Witherspoon Institute is putting out a book on the social costs of pornography -- not sure when it will be available.

Randy, homophobia specifically means "fear of sameness". Same clothes, same food, same anything under the sun.

Since moral qualms and sound philosophical reasoning are stupid and irrational in comparison to the pure truth of libido, it only follows that those opposed to perverse acts are phobic.

Of course, since politics and public opinion are based upon slogans and propaganda, it is best to keep the word as easily scream-able as possible. Since everyone who has been through the sixth grade knows the slang term "homo" means, and since "phobia" is also fairly well known, it is very easy to chant and scream.

Satan is the father of lies, and therefore marketing lingo is part of his portfolio.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.